1

2015

Ricardian ChronicleNewsletter by and about members of the American Branch of the Richard III Society

Richard III Society, Inc. Vol. 4 No. 1 June, 2018

"It is with sadness that we announce the passing today (18thMay 2018) of Dr John Ashdown-Hill. A prolific and popularauthor, John played an important, not to say critical, role in theLooking for Richard Project. It was he who tracked down MikeIbsen, one of the two whose DNA helped to confirm that theremains in the car park were actually those of King Richard. Whenwe first learnt of John's illness, one could only wonder how longhe had before he succumbed, Motor Neurone Disease* coming invarious forms, some worse than others. For John, his passing wasprobably a blessing though he will be much missed by his friendsand members of the Society. Our thoughts and prayers go withthem all at this time. The news comes too late for the June issueof the Ricardian Bulletin but there will be a full tribute in theSeptember issue."—Executive Committee, Richard III Society* Motor Neurone Disease is any of several neurodegenerative

disorders that selectively affect motor neurons, the cells thatcontrol voluntary muscles of the body that includesamyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

Go to Page 2 for Table of Contents (ToC).

In this Issue:Interview with Marla Skidmore

The Other Woman: An analysis of Eleanor Talbot ButlerSchallek AwardsRicardian Review

ex librisFrom the 1966 - 1991 Archive

Please contact Riikka Nikko at riikka.kyllikki@gmail.com for permission to use "John's Tribute."

2

ContentsInterview with Marla Skidmore 3

The Other Woman 7

Schallek Awards 9

Ricardian Reading 10

ex libris 18

Excerpts from 1966 Ricardian Register Vol. 1 No. 1 20

Board, Staff, and Chapter Contacts 21

Membership Application/Renewal Dues 22

Publication schedule and submission deadlines:The Ricardian Chronicle is published semi-annually, June and December. Submission deadlines are:May 15th for the June issue and November 15th for the December issue.

What type of article will be published in the Chronicle?The Ricardian Chronicle is a newsletter by and about members and chapters of the American Branch of the

Richard III Society. This is the publication to share your stories about Ricardian and related trips and events.Submission guidelines:

Text: 12 pt Times New Roman, Calibri, or Arial font, document file type can be rtf, doc, docx, or odt. (Sorry,I cannot accept pdf document type or non-standard fonts.)

Please contact me at info@r3.org

3

Interview with Marla SkidmoreMarla Skidmore grew up in a small medieval city in Northern England where

she met and married her soldier husband. They lived a typically military life—invarious postings all over the UK and Europe for a number of years—until shedecided to return home to become a mature student at Leeds University. She toldher family it would only be for four years. Seven years later she emerged with adual Honours Degree in English and History; a Master’s Degree in EnglishLiterature and a teaching Diploma and began a new career—Marla became aCollege Lecturer.

When a serious health issue resulted in her taking a prolonged career break,she turned to the writing in which she had dabbled since university and began herfirst novel—a romantic murder mystery, taking place during the Napoleonic Wars.It was set aside when Richard III’s grave was rediscovered. RENAISSANCE isthe result.Have you always wanted to write?

No, I am not one of those authors who have always known that they’ve wanted to write; I came quite late toit. I have always loved words though and was reading at a very early age—before I started school. As I grew alittle older I often got into trouble at home for having my nose in a book when I should have been doing chores.Our local Library was one of my favourite places to be and Historical Fiction became one of my favourite genres.I clearly remember my delight in discovering Frederick Marryat’s THE CHILDREN OF THE NEW FOREST—astory set during the English Civil War after the defeat of Charles I, which follows the fortunes of four childrenwho hide from their Roundhead oppressors. This was followed by authors such as Jean Plaidy, Georgette Heyer,and Elswyth Thane who wrote the classic Colonial Williamsburg novels.When did you know you wanted to become a writer?

That’s a memory that always makes me smile. It was during my third year at University—I was studying fora four-year dual honours degree in English and History. One of the courses of study was the Romantic Fiction;the successful formula of the Harlequin romance novels was a category we looked at. A fellow student and Idecided we could easily write one. We decided upon a historical romance set during the early years of the reignof Henry VIII. We had enormous fun in meticulously planning and researching it and with much laughter wrotethe first few chapters but somehow never got around to finishing it—it was the beginning of a long friendshipthough, and also the realization that I liked to write. From then onwards I wrote on and off—short stories, articles,poetry—even the beginnings of a couple of novels (historical of course). However, family and career commitmentsalways took precedence. It is said that every cloud has a silver lining—my cloud was breast cancer which forcedme to take a long career break—the silver lining was that it enabled me to concentrate on writing.When did you first become aware of RIII?

I can’t really put my finger on it—I suppose I have always known of him, you see I grew-up in Richard IIIcountry, in the small medieval city of Ripon located between Middleham and York. We northern folk have alwayshad an affection for ‘good king Richard.’ However, I became really interested in him when I read Josephine Tey’sDAUGHTER OF TIME in my late teens. Inspector Alan Grant’s methodical, analytical sifting through all theexisting evidence and his ultimately finding that Richard did not have a case to answer was an eye opener. I wenton to read Paul Murray Kendall’s RICHARD THE THIRD. His lyrical prose really brought him to life for me asa man.Is this your first book?

It is my first published book—the way it came to be written is a story in itself. I was at lunch in York with agroup of university friends at the time of the rediscovery of Richard’s grave—during all the controversy about hisreburial place. You can guess what the topic of conversation was—that his wish to be buried in York Minstershould be respected or if not, then as an anointed king, he should be buried in Westminster Abbey. I found myselfspeculating aloud about what he would have made of all the fuss if he were here. One of our group—a fellowRicardian and a highly respected Medieval historian—challenged me to write a story. Her words were: ‘write

4

about Richard III in blue jeans.’ Needless to say, my friend had sown the seed into my mind and it took root butthe flowering was quite different from what she envisaged. My Richard did not wear blue jeans but I did bringhim into the 21st century—in my own way. The story took her completely by surprise and she urged me to try toget it published.In the short time since its publication, RENAISSANCE has

been well received in the Book-Reading Community. InMay it received the recommendation and seal of approvalof the ‘Discovering Diamonds’ team of Reviewers—notonly for the novel itself but they also declared it winner ofthe month for Book Cover Design. And on June 6thRenaissance was announced as one of the winners in theFiction Category of the ‘Words for the Wounded—Georgina Hawtrey-Woore National Literary Award.’ Canyou tell us a little more about them?Discovering Diamonds is a Review Blog founded by Author

Helen Hollick. Their aim is to showcase historical fiction writtenby Indie and Self-Published Authors who do not have themarketing back-up of the big publishing houses —although traditionally published novels are welcome also. TheDiscovering Diamonds team are fussy in their selections—to quote the words on their website: “We only publishreviews of the best books, so we also take note of correct presentation and formatting, as well as the quality of thewriting—and when space and time are limited we may only select a few books a month to review. If your bookis selected to be reviewed then you know it is of an approved status.” Their chosen novels receive the DiscoveringDiamonds logo and are mentioned on Twitter—@HelenHollick—look for #DDRevs and Facebook.

The Words for The Wounded—Georgina Hawtrey-Woore Literary Award for Independent Authors (a charitythat helps members of the Armed Forces who have suffered serious mental or physical injury) is judged bypublished authors; literary agents and editors. It is in remembrance of a senior editor at Cornerstone, PenguinRandom House, who sadly died of breast cancer a few years ago. Georgina worked with authors such as KatieFforde; Kathy Reichs; Susan Lewis; Karin Slaughter and Dilly Court to name but a few. This makes the awardvery special to me as I am a breast cancer survivor and married to a military veteran.

It is almost impossible to describe my delight about the way in which RENAISSANCE has been received—Iloved writing the story and am so very gratified that those who have read it have taken time to leave their verycomplimentary reviews on Amazon and Social Media—in addition there is the very great satisfaction of receivingthe recommendation of my peers.Would you please tell us a little about RENAISSANCE—THE FALL AND RISE OF A KING?

My novel begins where most others end. Richard’s brutal slaying on Bosworth Field is not the end of his story,it is the beginning. The reader follows him into the Afterlife—to a place between life and eternity and watcheshim relive the events and confront the actions that he took which led him to the bloody Plain of Redemore; thenaccompanies him into the 21st century to be witness to the reburial of his rediscovered remains in LeicesterCathedral where Richard faces one final and very crucial decision that will affect his destiny through all eternity.

5

The setting of your novel is very unusual, where did the concept of locating Richard in Purgatory after thebattle, come from?Richard was a medieval man. Medieval Society very firmly believed in a physical Heaven and Hell. Its location

was believed to be somewhere in the Southern Hemisphere, surrounded by high mountains and vast deserts.Purgatory and The Garden of Eden would have been very real places to him. As I wanted my readers to step intohis world and his mindset, for me it seemed the logical place for him to be after his death on Bosworth Field. Theconcept of a soul in Purgatory is not a new one—Dante Ailghieri’s epic poem, THE DIVINE COMEDY, whichhe wrote in the 14th century, tells of his own soul’s journey through Hell guided by the ancient Roman poet Virgil.The second part of his poem PURGATORIO gave me the idea for the book’s setting. Dante with Virgil as hisguide, climbs up the seven levels of suffering and spiritual growth that make up Mount Purgatory, until he finallyreaches the earthly paradise of Eden. Allegorically PURGATORIA symbolises the penitent Christian and Edenrepresents the attainment of the state of innocence that existed before Adam and Eve fell from Grace—whichDante’s journey represents. In my story Richard achieves Eden but is unwilling to take the final step to Heaven;his mentor Father Gilbert makes him re-examine the reasons for this reluctance.Your book takes the reader deep into Richard’s psyche—what made you decide to tell his story in this way?

I wanted the reader to hear Richard’s voice; to watch him being honest with himself; to listen to his innermostthoughts; share his pain as he examines his conscience and considers his actions. I wanted the reader to see theking pared back to the man himself and for the contemporary reader to be able to identify with him as a ‘wartsand all’ human being. I also wanted to do my own little part in trying to redress the balance—the victor alwayswrites history—for too long the strident voices of Tudor enthusiasts and traditional historians have coloured theimage of Richard the deepest black.The other main protagonist in your novel is the fictional character of Father Gilbert—where did he come

from?I intended Father Gilbert to make only a brief appearance in the novel—he was to act as Richard’s celestial

guide into Purgatory and then disappear. He wouldn’t allow this to happen, he kept reappearing in mymind—insisting that he should stay in the story to be Richard’s mentor and friend—to make sure that Richardwon out in the end. It was natural for me to make him a Franciscan monk—the Order was sympathetic to theYorkists. I believe that one of Richard’s personal chaplains came from the Franciscan Order. Thinking furtherabout him—I perhaps subconsciously modelled him on Dante’s poet guide in PURGATORIA.Was it hard to have a fictional character interact with an historical character?

When writing about actual historical characters one has to be careful as their lives and the events that theytook part in are already all mapped out but I found it relatively easy to weave Father Gilbert into the story—as hetook no part in Richard’s past life—he was an observer and a vehicle with which I could take readers into Richard’smind…and of course he was his guardian angel who was intent on making sure that Richard received naturaljustice.Why did you have Edward IV’s sons murdered in your book and have Richard shouldering the blame for

their deaths?I’ve always felt that the Duke of Buckingham killed the boys— either to curry greater favour with Richard or

as the tool of John Morton, Bishop of Ely and Margaret Beaufort. I got the idea from a well-known story aboutHenry II and Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury. In a fit of rage against Becket, Henry shouted ‘Will noone rid me of this turbulent priest.’ On hearing these carelessly spoken words, four of his knights took it uponthemselves to murder Becket in Canterbury Cathedral. When I remembered it, I thought—‘what if Richard wereto carelessly express regret for the existence of the boys and Buckingham overheard him?’ This, and the existenceof two mysterious unidentified children’s stone coffins, located in a small adjoining chamber in Edward IV’s tombin St George’s Chapel, Windsor—gave me my raison d’etre.Did you find any part of the story difficult to write?

The battle scene which takes place towards the end of chapter one was hard to write—I was determined togive Richard a small taste of victory and had to get him past Henry Tudor’s bodyguard of Pikemen. Having beentold by a very knowledgeable Ricardian historian that this was impossible, I had to make it both possible and

6

plausible—my husband’s (a military veteran) practical knowledge about battle readiness helped me to overcomethat problem. The other scene that I found difficult to write is at the beginning of Chapter two—where Richardrelives his own death—writing it really made my heart hurt.How do you research? What secondary resources did you use?

I try to immerse myself in the lives of the characters I am going to write about. For this novel living in NorthYorkshire, near to the places that have such a close association with Richard, it was relatively easy to spend manypleasurable afternoons in and around Middleham Castle imagining what Richard’s life there was like. Walkingthe ramparts of York’s city walls, I could see the mustering of his volunteer troops in front of Monk Bar afternews of of Edward IV’s death and the Woodville grab for power reached him and whilst enjoying a cup of teaand some scones in the Jervaulx Abbey Tearooms, I could see him at worship in the great abbey church. Thesecondary sources that I used were Paul Murray Kendall’s ‘Richard III,’ his writing style made Richard the manvery real to me. Anne Carson’s ‘Richard III The Maligned King;’ Michael Jones’ ‘Bosworth the Psychology ofa Battle;’ John Ashdown-Hill’s ‘Wars of the Roses’ and ‘The Mythology of Richard III,’ and of course The manyscholarly articles to be found on The Richard III Society’s Website were all invaluable to me. As was the inputof fellow Ricardian and Medieval Historian, Cris Connor—who kept me firmly on the straight and narrow withregard to Richard’s world and the Battle of Bosworth.Given that he/she is dealing with actual events that have taken place and people who have lived, do you

think a writer of historical fiction should stick strictly to the facts or is he/she justified in distortinghistory for dramatic licence?Historical fiction makes history accessible; brings characters to life therefore, I feel that a historical fiction

writer’s main responsibility is to respect history—be true to the events and the people about whom they havechosen to write. If they need to bend facts for dramatic licence—to suit their story, then they should be sure toacknowledge this in their Author’s Notes.Is there any other character in Richard’s world that you find interesting?

I find Francis Viscount Lovell fascinating because he doesn’t strike me as having been the warrior type—hewas a ward of Edward IV but there is very little record of his time under his control—there is no record of hisknightly training; he did not fight at Barnet or Tewkesbury—although he did take part in the border skirmishesagainst Scotland. He seems to have been content to be a friend and advisor to Richard—an administrator in thebackground a total contrast to the ambitious Duke of Buckingham. I’ve read somewhere that he had a fascinationfor books and spent a great deal of time in monastery libraries. After Bosworth he could easily have thrown in thetowel; taken the oath of loyalty to Henry Tudor, as many of his contemporaries did, and then continued living arich and easy life. Instead he chose to become of a hunted fugitive, doing his best to organise rebellion and drivethe Tudor out of England back from whence he came. The extreme grief and outrage Lovell must have felt aboutthe manner of Richard’s death and the vile treatment of his corpse—especially when he learned that his ownstepfather William Stanley had betrayed his friend, transformed this man of peace into an avenging angel whowas quite a thorn in Henry Tudor’s side. It’s sad that he didn’t succeed but he had no experience as a militarycommander and no knowledge of battle strategy.What’s next for you as an author?

Well…I’m in somewhat of a quandary. I put aside a romantic murder mystery set during the Napoleonic Warsto write ‘RENAISSANCE.’ I had six chapters already written and the rest of the novel meticulously plotted out.I promised myself that I would return to it as soon as Richard’s story was told but now ideas for a sequel arerunning around my head—about Francis Lovell. I am also involved in a project with my writing group ‘SkellScriveners’ in putting together a poetry and prose anthology on different themes—our deadline for publication isthe end of 2018. So here I am with a published novel, one partially written, another in the planning stage and acommitment to a further writing project—which do I tackle first? Is it possible to tackle them simultaneously?And then there also the promotion and marketing of ‘RENAISSANCE’ which is a pretty steep learning curve forme.

~ ToC ~

7

The Other WomanAn excerpt from KING’S GAMES, The Commentaries

Nance CrawfordI can remember one of my seventh-grade teachers, a sweet maiden lady, calling one of the boys to the front

of the class to help with a demonstration. When he reached her, she went to the door to the hall, pulled it open,and stepped back. Waving him ahead, she said, “I’ll go first.”

He immediately walked out, leaving her holding the door.I cannot remember if we were stunned or giggled. Probably both.She called him back into the room, reassuring him that what he had done was quite natural, he had just proved

her point: that gestures—actions—inevitably speak louder than words.Like Elizabeth Woodville after her, the widowed Eleanor Talbot Butler insisted on an exchange of vows before

tumbling into bed with the new, nineteen-year-old king of England. She probably insisted on the presence of aclergyman as witness. A member of the nobility well-versed in the rules, and devotedly religious, it can be deducedfrom her ensuing actions that, to her, the consequence of Mortal Sin was not a theoretical concept, it was a constant,viable danger.

In a day when the Sacrament was parceled out judiciously, when men would give their lives to protect theBlessed Elements from defilement, when holy women were reputed to survive by ingesting only the Bread andWine of Communion, when Death stood one step within reach of knocking on anyone’s door at any moment, theprospect of dying in a state of sin was a thought beyond terror. Abruptly passing from this world, to stand naked,unshriven and unblessed, at the feet of the enthroned Lord of Hosts, then thrown down into Eternal Fire, was avery real threat for the believer.

She was six years older than Edward, having been bartered into a ten-year marriage to a man twice her agewho had left her with no living children. She suddenly found herself the focus of attention of her new king, a talland handsome young man of charm and sophistication.

The circumstances of their first meeting are unknown, although it was undoubtedly through John Mowbray,her brother-in-law and heir of the Duke of Norfolk. The question of her remarriage had not yet become a concernand, for a while more, at least, she had some modest control of her own destiny.

After the Palm Sunday victory at Towton, Edward was on the threshold of becoming king. Even so, he wantedher.

She would have been a fool to say no. She was not a fool. She was mature enough to not permit herself to beduped. She could understand that, in the tumbling rapids of history which were sweeping the beautiful young manto his destiny, he did not have time to be concerned with much formality. He wanted her, now. He wanted her sobadly that he was willing to pledge his devotion before a priest, declare himself married.

There was a priest in his entourage.Canon Robert Stillington, Keeper of the Privy Seal, was, of necessity, never far from the king’s call. Worldly

and ambitious, Stillington agreed to witness their promises to each other and keep their romantic secret.Edward, however, had quickly gone, off to London, to be crowned. Within the month, Robert Stillington was

granted the enormous salary of ₤365 per year.Eleanor moved from her father-in-law’s home to East Hall, Kenninghall, Norfolk, where she would have

privacy to entertain visitors. Owned by her sister, it was part of the jointure Elizabeth had received at the time ofher marriage.

In November, Eleanor’s sister, Elizabeth, became the Duchess of Norfolk. There was no sign of Edward’sintention to honor his pledge to her sister.

It probably did not take Edward long to realize that he had seduced the wrong woman. Whatever the intimatedetails, he soon lost interest, although he apparently granted Eleanor property in Wiltshire early the followingyear. Not long after, Eleanor endowed a fellowship at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. If she was gentle andunassuming, she was also religious.

At the end of May, 1462, Eleanor began an association with the Carmelite priory in Norwich.

8

Edward was not a complete cad. He granted Eleanor’s father-in-law, Lord Sudeley, the right to hunt WoodstockPark for four bucks in the summer and six does in the winter.

Within three months thereafter, it must have been over. The grant to Lord Sudeley was revoked.In March of 1463, Eleanor became a Carmelite tertiary.The following May Day, Edward secretly married Elizabeth Woodville Grey.In anticipation of his being appointed to the newly vacant bishopric, on January 20, 1465, Edward granted

Robert Stillington the temporalities (revenue) of the see of Bath and Wells. It took another year, but Stillingtonwas finally confirmed by Rome and consecrated Bishop.

On June 20, 1467, Robert Stillington was appointed Chancellor. A trusted counselor, indeed.Just under a year later, on June 4th, Eleanor Talbot Butler granted her personal property to her sister, the Duchess

of Norfolk. Sixteen days later, she was dead at thirty-two. She was buried in the choir of the Carmelite PrioryChurch in Norwich.

Even with only the bare outline of the story, it is possible to see that, for Eleanor, the outcome was inevitable.For all her position in society, Eleanor was unsophisticated. Sheltered in her father-in-law’s home by her

marriage at age thirteen, it is entirely possible that she never left the immediate area, that the gossip she heard, theromances she may have read, did not prepare her for the sophisticated, worldly choices which were to victimizeher.

When she realized she had, indeed, been duped, that, in the eyes of God and the Church, she was married toa young man who not only wanted nothing to do with her, but had the power to quietly cast her aside withoutqualm, her despair must have been overwhelming.

She had locked herself into a marriage that whispered away like mist from between her fingers. The boy shehad trusted and loved was doomed to Hell for his lies and defiance of God’s Law. He did not consider himselfmarried. He had broken faith, and, because of his position, he could deny it all, could laugh at the adventure, wouldget away with it.

To apply to Rome for an annulment would be an outright lie. She was married. She had walked blindly intothe sin of arrogance, of pride, and her only escape was sincere penance for her foolishness. Her sister and herbrother-in-law would have known of the affair, for there is no evidence that she was ever pressured, as Butler’swidow, to remarry, the standard expectation at the time.

She could not escape into the cloister, for although there were many Carmelite monasteries in England, therewere then no establishments for women. The Second Order of Carmelites had been established on the Continentless than fifteen years earlier, but the movement had not yet crossed the channel. In any event, as a woman witha living husband, she did not qualify to enter the novitiate.

The Third Order of Carmelites would not officially exist, with their own Rule, until created by Papal Bullthirteen years later.

The only choice she saw open to her was to live the life of a lay religious, a tertiary, a member of a ThirdOrder. In the world but not of it, she would follow the Rule of the order as closely as possible in her daily life.

She cloistered herself in the house owned by her sister and was dead four years later.From personal experience I know, beyond doubt, that it is possible to die of guilt, of a broken heart.

~ ToC ~

9

Schallek AwardsCompton Reeves

The Schallek Awards program memorializes Dr. William B. Schallek, whose vision and generosity establishedthe original scholarship fund, and his wife, Maryloo Spooner Schallek.The Medieval Academy administers the award.

The Medieval Academy, in collaboration with the Richard III Society-American Branch, offers afull-year fellowship and five graduate student awards in memory of William B. and Maryloo SpoonerSchallek. The fellowship and awards are supported by a generous gift to the Richard III Society fromWilliam B. and Maryloo Spooner Schallek.

The Schallek Fellowship provides a one-year grant of $30,000 to support Ph.D. dissertation researchin any relevant discipline dealing with late-medieval Britain (ca. 1350-1500). The annual applicationdeadline is 15 October.

The Schallek awards support graduate students conducting doctoral research in any relevant disciplinedealing with late-medieval Britain (ca. 1350-1500). The $2,000 awards help defray research expenses suchas the cost of travel to research collections and the cost of photographs, photocopies, microfilms, and otherresearch materials. The cost of books or equipment (e.g., computers) is not included. The annual applicationdeadline is 15 February.

Applicants to both Schallek programs must be members of the Medieval Academy. Graduate studentswho are members of the Medieval Academy and who seek support to research and write Ph.D. dissertationson topics related to medieval Britain before 1350 or on any other medieval topic should apply to theMedieval Academy Dissertation Grant program.

2018 Schallek Award-winnersMichelle Brooks (University of Massachusetts, Amherst), “Poeticizing the Universe: Scientific

Discourse and Literary Absence in Chaucer’s ‘A Treatise on the Astrolabe.'”Gina Marie Hurley (Yale University), “Schryue yow openlye: Confession and Community in Middle

English Literature.”Michaela Jacques (Harvard University), “The Reception and Transmission of the Medieval Welsh

Bardic Grammars, 1330-1578.”Anna Kelner (Harvard University), “Remedies against Temptations: Vision, Ethics and Gender in Later

Medieval England.”Charlotte Clare Whatley (University of Wisconsin, Madison), “No Time Runs Against the King: The

Function of Fictions in the Late-Medieval English Common Law.”

~ ToC ~

10

Ricardian ReadingMyrna Smith

There's a skeleton in every closet.—Common saying.LOST BODIES: A CHRONICLE OF DEATHS, DISAPPEARANCES, AND DISCOVERIES—Jenni Davis,IMS Books, NY, 2017

This is a coffee table book, with more concentration on illustration than text, but quite useful for all that. It isdivided into three sections: 'Well and Truly Lost:' those bodies that have been misplaced for so long, centuries ormillennia, that it is unlikely they will ever be found: Alexander the Great, Harold II, Genghis Khan. Even in thissection, there are some exceptions: Did Davy Crockett's body really go missing? He has a gravestone in the SanFrancisco Cathedral in San Antonio, but are his charred remains in there really Davy's?

The next section is “Lost and Found.” Richard is not the only ruler whose skeleton has come to light. OliverCromwell and Henri IV of France have also been found—or at least parts of them. And of course, there are theRomanovs, and Eva Peron.

Finally, there is 'Lost for Good' persons who simply disappeared, and are unlikely to be found because theyhave no known burial places. These include the Princes in the Tower, Louis Le Prince, who was not a prince, butwho may have invented the motion picture camera, Roald Amundsen, Amelia Earhart. This is not to say themysteries surrounding these long-missing persons will never be solved. Lord Lucan might even still be alive. Afterall, he would be only 84.

All very interesting, Wanda good thing, if it gets people interested in the mystery, and in history. Recommendedas a good gift-book selection, if you have to give it to yourself.

Blood cannot be obtained from a stone—Charles DickensBLOOD ROYAL: The Wars of the Roses 1462-1485)—Hugh Bicheno, Pegasus Books, NY, 2017

Bicheno provides about a page of ‘primary sources’ found online, which seem a lazy man’s way of doingresearch, and approximately four pages of ‘secondary sources’ in a bibliography. At times, a source, such asMancini, is referred to in the text, but the only footnotes amplify the text; they do not give a source for any of theauthor’s statements. The only way of discovering where he gets his information for any statement is to read everyword of every source. Few academics are going to do that, never mind the casual reader, for whom this book isdesigned.

There are some good points to the book. Bicheno does provide a lot of maps, family trees, charts of varioussorts (e.g. a list of ‘Protagonists and marriages,’ running to 14 pages). Chronologically, the book omits the earlierbattles of the Wars of the Roses, as these are covered in his earlier book BATTLE ROYAL.

He announces his theory early on. “Was the Yorkist cause dishonorable? Well—yes.” Bicheno describes howRichard II had arbitrarily taken Henry Bolingbroke’s inheritance from him, and how Henry (who ruled as HenryIV) took the throne from Richard. Henry VI, whose ‘’…only offense (other than chronic weakness) was a cautiousrefusal to hand over the administration of his kingdom to a haughty cousin with as good or better right by bloodto the throne.” But the Lancastrians are the good guys, and Yorkists are the baddies. No room for moralequivalencies here. Hugh Bicheno has picked a side and will stick with it.

Sometimes this leads him to make statements that are factually untrue. For example, on Pg. 64: “George wastwo years older than Richard.” Actually, it was just about three weeks short of three years. But what’s a year ortwo between friends. Pg. 297: “The most regime-threatening part of the conspiracy (Buckingham's) was amongthe Yeoman of the Crown…” who were not organized, or not known as such until Henry VII’s reign.

“The discovery of Richard III’s bones has only underlined the durable fascination of a period that culminatedin one king buried with full honours in the magnificent chapel he built at Windsor, and his successor brother’snaked body cast into an unmarked grave…28 months later.” But Richard’s grave was not unmarked at the time,and the author should know this.

It is not Bicheno’s minor inaccuracies that are troubling, as much as his major errors of argumentation andlogic. For instance: “The issue of blood became crucial after York was killed in battle. There was good reason tobelieve that Edward, his heir, was not his son…parents of slight builds and average height does not engender burlysons 7-8 inches taller than they.” This betrays only a superficial knowledge of genetics. “Richard conspicuouslyslighted Edward in favour of his second son, Edmund.” No source is given for this statement, and Edward remainedthe heir.

11

The author gives much valuable insight into politics on the continent, as they affected events in England andelsewhere. But his sense of omniscience leads him into drawing conclusions about the motives of his subjects,both political and personal, that may not be warranted.

Bicheno consistently refers to the Duke of Brittany as Frañcez (with a tilde over the n). This may be the wayit was written in Breton, if you assume that that language, rather than French, was spoken at the ducal court. Itjust seems odd, since there is no contemporary Francis or Francois that he could be confused with. Who is goingto think he and Francis Lovell were the same person?

“It is not difficult to deduce what tipped George into outright malignancy. ….at some point, the enragedDuchess Cecily must have told him that Edward was not his father’s son, and that he should properly sit in hisplace.” This is not reasoning backwards. This is what I think happened, so it must have happened. OK if one iswriting a novel, but Mr. Bicheno is presumably not.

“The idea that Rivers, his brothers and his nephews worked to a plan concocted by Elizabeth to increase theirpower and influence is manifest nonsense. To the contrary…Rivers spurned opportunities to make himself amagnate.” Occasions when he did not spurn them are dismissed as exceptional.

“One of the most persistent myths about the Woodville ascendancy is the supposedly scandalous nature of themarriage…between the elder of the two dowager duchesses of Norfolk, 65-year-old Katherine Neville, and thequeen’s 19-year-old brother John. This is based on a misunderstanding of women’s property rights. What actuallytook place was that Katherine—who had another scandalous liaison between her marriages…bought herself ayoung husband, and with him influence at court.” Oh, that makes everything all right. Move along, folks, noscandal to see here. Poor Johnny, victimized by a Medieval cougar! Besides, hasn’t the author just informed usthat the Woodvilles exercised no particular influence at court?

“If Duchess Cecily, in her fury at losing her precedence at court to a woman she could not dominate did indeedtell [George] at this time that Edward was the product of her adultery, it would explain a great deal of what ensued.”This is called begging the question.

A little bit of psychoanalysis: “…Edward’s lifelong philandering may be seen as an obsessive fixation on anunattainable partner by someone emotionally crippled from childhood. Pursuing the thread, another manifestationof the same psychological deprivation would have been a subconscious attempt to build himself an alternativefamily—which incurred the potentially murderous hostility of his biological mother and half-brothers.” This, ofcourse, carries the question-begging a little further.

Pg. 150: “Sociological studies of the posturing hyper-masculinity known as machismo occur in the paradoxicalrole of mothers in perpetuating it as a form of revenge on philandering fathers. They teach their sons that all women—apart from the sainted mother—are bitches on heat and all men treacherous dogs. Throw in the high testosteronelevels commonly found in homosexual men, add almost unlimited wealth and power, and you get Charles ‘theBold.” Where are these studies? And isn’t this supposed to be about the English Wars of the Roses, not continentalhistory?

Pg. 201: “When [Henry VI’s] bones were examined in 1910 the skull was found to be shattered, with residualscalp and dried blood suggestive of a heavy blow to the back of the head. Edward probably ordered it done asmercifully as possible, and somebody hit him with a club as he knelt, head bowed in prayer.” All invented details.

Pg. 242: “Gloucester was 8 years old when Richard of York was killed and would have remembered him asa distant, god-like figure…the contrast between how he believed a son of York should behave and what he observedin Edward was stark. He did not keep away from court because of the Woodvilles, far less favoured and powerfulthan he, but for fear his mask would slip.” Again, attributing motives Richard may not have had, and certainly notat the age of eight. This doesn't even pass the smell test for fiction.

Pg. 272: The siren song of ‘After which therefore because of which’ must be resisted during the last monthsof Edward’s reign.” Yet this is a principle which he will often violate.

Pp. 273-4: “Thomas More knew Jane (Shore) in her old age…Jane told More that the king spoke of only threelong-term lovers…” That More could have and probably did see Jane in her later years does not mean that he hadany conversation with her. He never credits the information about the king’s three mistresses to her, though Bichenodoes. Even if he did get the information from her, More was perfectly capable of inventing conversations whichhe could not possibly have overheard.

12

Pg. 279: “Cecily…had waited nearly twenty years for revenge on Elizabeth, and threw discretion to the windwhen Gloucester summoned the late king’s executors to Baynards castle…The truth was that Cecily told thegathering that Edward had been conceived in adultery, and Bourchier and the others were convinced it must betrue….” No proof that she told them anything at all. Besides, Edward was definitely her son, even if he wasn’ther husband's. Why should she hate him and wish to disgrace him, and herself?

Pg. 285 footnote: “A Freudian would argue that R’s vindictiveness was displacement activity for his ambivalentfeelings about his mother.” In other words, I wouldn’t say this about this awful person, but some people will.

Pg. 289: “Even if Stillington’s statement had been true the princes in the Tower were born after Eleanordied…so they were free of the taint of bigamy.” But Edward’s marriage to Elizabeth was bigamous in its origin,and did not become automatically legal when Eleanor died.

Pg. 290: Why did Duchess Cecily not attend Richard and Anne’s coronation? “Perhaps she was ashamed toshow her face after being publicly branded an adulteress, but possibly it had dawned on her, much too late, thatshe had put her grandsons in mortal peril. The ostentatious piety of her later life suggests belated repentance forthe great evil she had wrought, and when she died her will mentioned her husband and Edward IV, but not heryoungest son.” But her ‘ostentatious piety’ had begun years before. And the much-vaunted piety of MargaretBeaufort is simply piety

Pg. 302: “Psychopaths are polarizing individual, mesmerizing to weak personalities but repulsive to those whocan see them as they are. Richard commanded a loyalty from his northern retainers that went far beyond hope ofgain…the personalities of his northern followers were per-shaped by submission to the will of the no lesspsychopathic Kingmaker. Nor should we overlook the fact that Richard was physically unimpressive.” Richardwas ugly, Warwick was ugly, (a conclusion based on a stylized representation of him on his father’s tomb) thereforethey were both psychopathic. And on top of that, the author manages to tar an entire geographic area with thesame brush.

Pg. 312: “One of the strongest modern Ricardian arguments against the guilt of their hero is that Henry Tudornever specifically accused Richard of having murdered his nephews…suspicion and rumour were already doingall the damage that could be hoped for, and an open accusation risked the possibility that Richard might producethe princes like a rabbit out of a hat.” But if there was the remotest possibility that he could have produced them,this argument fails.

Pg. 305: Any ‘progressive’ or good legislation instigated by Richard is considered ‘cosmetic. “or ‘playing tothe gallery.” Even facts that do not show Richard in a good light, or in any light at all, are treated cavalierly. Pg328:“Uncle Jasper was left in Wales, perhaps to act as governor but probably because he was unwilling to take ordersfrom younger and abler men.” While there is no evidence that Jasper was at Bosworth, there is no evidence thathe was anywhere else, much less of the reason.

Pg. 330: There is a chart of men named in the ballad of Bosworth Field and other credible sources. What thesecredible sources are we are not told.

Pg. 351: “History is the mistress of life, and I have tried to make love to her as she deserves.” This is the lastline of the book, and I wouldn't dare to add to it, or even comment on it!

Never speak ill of the dead—English version of a Latin proverbSIX OF ONE: A TUDOR RIFF—JoAnn Spears, Kindle Edition, 2011

Our heroine, Dolly, has decided to become the 7th bride of a much-married multi-millionaire, Henry, who inhis youth was with a band called Good Company. (Chapter Heading: Six chicks had already been nixed in themix.) At her wedding shower, attended by her assorted female relatives—and his—she passes out. “I could justimagine the headlines: 'Bride Chokes to Death on Cocktail Olive.' I would never live that down.” Whileunconscious, she is transferred to another plane, where she meets a number of Tudor/Plantagenet ladies, who seemto have odd parallels in the 21st century. (Chapter heading: The Sweet Smell of Six Ex's.)

She is introduced to Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth of York, and finds out what really happened to theprinces, and is also privileged to meet Bess of Hardwick. “I wonder if anyone ever called Bess of Hardwickredoubtable to her face. I redoubted it.”

Mostly, though, she engages in a symposium with Henry VIII's six wives, who reveal the true story of theirmarriages. Which wife was a lesbian? Which was a witch? Which a murderess? And which one was hot to trot?

13

Her conclusion: Henry was terribly misunderstood. No, she doesn't marry him. Dolly meets an old sweetheart,Wally Rolly, and becomes Dolly Rolly. Her ex-fiancé Henry joins a monastery.SEVEN WILL OUT: A RENAISSANCE REVEL—JoAnn Spears, Kindle edition, 2015

Dolly Rolly, due to receive academic recognition for her seminal work on Henry VIII, passes out again at theceremony honoring her (chapter heading: Dear Me, Syncope), and comes to, as before, on an astral plane, whereshe meets a number of later Tudor ladies, including queens, and three—count them, three—Grey sisters, plusArabella Stewart, who, in the opinion of her contemporaries, is 'a few stays short of a corset.' These ladies haveopinions on everything, as does Dolly, and they quote freely from Gilbert & Sullivan, P.G. Wodehouse, and theBard. Well, that would be easy, since they wrote the works commonly attributed to William Shakespeare. Allthree queens (including Jane Grey) were busy constructing plays, as were the other Grey sisters. Did Shakespearewrite any of Shakespeare? Well, yes, the sonnets, and possibly Antony and Cleopatra.

Now prohibited by their non-corporeality from being playwrights, these ladies not run a sort of supra-naturaladvice bureau, consulted by the great and good, such as the Empress Josephine, Mary Todd Lincoln, Greta Garbo,Katherine Hepburn, and Lucille Ball.

Good, clean, punny fun. At the end, we learn the reason for Dolly's fainting spell. Yes, the Rolly marriage isabout to be blessed by a bouncing baby Rolly.

Every baby born in the world is a finer one than the last.—Charles DickensROYAL BABIES: A History 1066-2013—Amy Licence, Gloucester, UK, 2013

Ms. License gives us case histories of selected royal babies. In chronological order, they are� Matilda, born 1102; grew up to become “Lady of the English” and mother of Henry II� William, born 1153, son of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine; died in infancy.� Eleanor, born 1215, daughter of John and Isabella of Angeulome; grew up to marry Simon de Monfort.� Edward, born 1284, son of Edward I and Eleanor of Castile; grew up to be king Edward II.� Edward, born 1330, son of Edward III and Phillipa of Hainault; grew up to be the Black Prince, died

at 46.� Henry, born 1386, son of Henry IV and Mary de Bohun; grew up to be Henry V, died in his 30s.� Edward, born 1453, son of Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou; died at 17.� Edward, born 1470, son of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville, died (?)� Arthur, born 1486, son of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York; died at 15.� Henry, born 1511, son of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon; died in infancy.� Elizabeth, born 1533, daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Bolyen; became Queen, died at 70.� Edward, born 1537, son of Henry VIII and Jane Seymour; became King Edward VI, died in his teens.� James, born 1566, son of Mary Queen of Scots and Lord Darnley; became King� Henry, born 1594, son of James I and Anne of Denmark; died in his teens.� Henriette (Minnette), daughter of Charles I and Henrietta Maria; grew up to marry Philippe of Orleans,

died at 26.� James, born 1688, son of James, Duke of York, and Mary of Modena; grew up to be the “Old Pretender� George, born 1788, son of the much-hated (by his parents) Frederick, Prince of Wales, and Agusta of

Saxe-Gotha; grew up to be George III, died at 80.� Amelia, born1783, last daughter of George III and Queen Charlotte; died of TB at 27.� George, born 1817, son of Princess Charlotte of England and Leopold of Sax-Coburg, grandson of

George IV; stillborn.� Victoria, born 1840 (Princess Vicky), daughter of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert; grew up to marry

and become the mother of Kaiser Wilhelm.� Edward, born 1894, and� Albert, born 1895, sons of the Prince who would become George V, and Mary of Teck, great- grandsons

of Queen Victoria. Grew; up to become Edward VIII and George VI, respectively.� Elizabeth, born feet first in 1926, daughter of George VI and Lady Elizabeth Bowen-Lyon; grew up

to be Elizabeth II, at this writing 91 and counting

14

(The book was published before the Duchess of Cambridge's children were born, so they are hypothetical inthis context.)

What we can learn from this: Royal or commoner, try to arrange to be born no earlier than the 20th century ofcourse, the royals of previous generations had the benefit of the best medical literature of their times, e.g. booksof “leechcraft.” Such a book of the 11th century advised expectant mothers 'not to eat salt or drink beer.' Hmmm,I was told that too. But they were also warned off sour foods, as well, not so much for their own health but forfear it might mark the child. It was widely believed that the pangs of childbirth could be transferred to anotherwoman (but not to a man?) by witchcraft. If only…

Ms. Licence bypasses poor Queen Anne, who lost all of her many children, but the Stuarts in general were notgreat obstetric subjects. James II had eight children by Anne Hyde, of whom only two daughters survived (MaryII and Anne). By Mary of Modena, only one of ten survived—the so-called 'warming-pan baby.' (aka The OldPretender).

Query: Why do Americans say someone 'gets pregnant,' as if it were a g great accomplishment, while theBritish say 'falls pregnant,' as if “oops, how did that happen?”

Adults are really not wiser than children, they're just more cunning—AnonymousSHAKESPEARE'S HENRY VII, David Collard

The premise of this play is that the “Henry VII” written by William Shakespeare and then somehow mislaid,like all those Sherlock Holmes stories that John H. Watson carelessly left lying around for generations. Mr. Collardargues that it may not have been simple carelessness. “To have revived questions about the legitimacy of the Tudorsuccession…would have been foolish. Yet he wrote Julius Caesar, a dangerous play if ever there was one…Thereare also artistic arguments. First there is the question of whether Henry provides sufficiently interestingmaterial…Bosworth, the most glorious episode, had been covered in Richard III…Our principal was no Henry Vand there was no Agincourt.” In fact, Henry’s life, though having natural turning points, doesn’t have them in theright places for the dramatist’s purpose. What is unique about the life of Henry Tudor is that he was an anomaly:the successful pretender. John Ford wrote that play. He called it Perkin Warbeck. Though Perkin was not successfulas a pretender, he would have been, and was, a star turn as a play.

The author does his best by Henry, including most of the major events of his life and even inventing a few.For example, there is no evidence that Elizabeth of York requested him to marry again, or, for that matter, not to.But she could have. Henry is not caricatured. He has some admirable qualities and even a sense of humor, thoughit is what the Scots would call a pawky one. Example: Elizabeth, understandably skeptical about astrologers, stillwants to know if she will live to see the coronation of her younger son. Henry interrupts acidly, “It’s certain thatI won’t. “

Minor characters are more stereotyped. There is a Greek chorus led by Henry’s fool, commenting on events,explaining how Morton’s fork worked, etc. Henry’s advisers are divided into the Good (Giles Daubney) and theBad (Morton, Fox, Empson, Dudley, et al)

Mr. Collard speaks of opportunity cost. “The opportunity of writing one play was the loss of another. Theopportunity cost of Henry VII might have been the loss of Julius Caesar or As You Like It, or Hamlet, or TwelfthNight, or…What more do we want? Blood? Well, perhaps.”

Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.—Proverbs22:6

SECRET SON OF YORK—Maureen Fairbank, Kindle EditionSir Thomas Moyle is fascinated by his new employee, a bricklayer called “Old Dick.” Obviously an educated

man down on his luck, he is old enough to have a fund of stories about the late unpleasantness (The Wars of theRoses) as well as the reigns of the first Tudors. But he can be a little long-winded. Sir Thomas frequently interruptshim with “I know all that.” Then Old Dick drops a bombshell. He is the son of Elizabeth of York and Richard III.The two have a conventional uncle-niece relationship until Elizabeth is about twelve years old, when she beginsto become self-conscious. By the time she is 15 ½ she feels like a spinster who will never be married, and isbecoming very frustrated, especially as she is well aware of her beauty.

Richard convinces himself that their relationship is perfectly all right, since Edward IV was only hishalf-brother, and therefore Elizabeth is only his half-niece. The story is loosely based on the so-laced Buck letter,the Croyland Chronicle, and 'legend.' The story is narrated by Old Dick (Richard Plantagenet of Eastwell) and by

15

Elizabeth herself. It will require a willing suspension of disbelief to accept their stories, and also a suspension ofgrammar and punctuation. Many words that are usually written as one, or hyphenated -erg. somehow, out-numbered, are divided into two words: some how, out numbered. Paragraph breaks are inserted apparently atrandom, often in the middle of a sentence. And the whole, though written in the 21st century, is in full Victorianlady-novelist style.

For the completest.Living is being born slowly. It would be a little too easy if we could borrow ready-made souls.—Antoine

de Saint-ExuperyHEARTS NEVER CHANGE—Joanne R. Larner, Kindle edition, Part III of the RICHARD LIVETH YET trilogy

The cover of this book shows Richard in motorcycle leathers, and very fetching he looks, too. If he has a fewgray hairs, at 50+, or 550+, they are not visible under the helmet. This is how he looks when he turns up on thedoorstep of his third wife, Rose, after 15 years. They have been trying to get together during all that time, but thefact that they are in different times (literally) has made it difficult. In some ways, their troubles are just beginning.Richard has been, through no fault of his own, an absentee father to his adolescent twins, as well as an absenteefrom modern times in general. There are adjustments to be made. Talk about a generation gap!

To some extent, the story is combined with a travelogue of Norway, a country Ms. Larner is obviouslyenamored with, as much as with Richard III. In the middle book of the trilogy, she made her heroine, A FOREIGNCOUNTRY, she has her heroine, Rose, pretend to be a Norwegian princess

This brings the series to a satisfying, happy-ever-after, close, with all loose ends tied up. What more couldyou ask for? Well, if you do want more, check out Ms. Larner's facebook page, DICKON FOR HIS DAMES.

Paper bleeds little.—Earnest HemingwayTHE SURVIVAL OF THE PRINCES IN THE TOWER: MURDER, MSTERY AND MYTH—Matthew Lewis,

The History Press, UK, 2018 (Hardcover), Kindle Edition 2017Asking to be taken more seriously, and deserving to be, is Matthew Lewis' seminal work on the boys (they

were not both Princes) in the Tower. Lewis tries to be impartial, in spite of his natural bias as a Ricardian, andsucceeds most of the time. He has four main theses of what might have happened to them, which we might as welltake in order.

Instead of killing them, their uncle Richard spirited them away to safety. Lewis quite accurately anddevastatingly shows up the holes in the traditional (More) story, but doesn't seem to realize that there are holes,though not so glaring, in his own theory. If the boys were alive and well in a distant castle, why did the King notsay so when the rumor first surfaced? He doesn't have to say where. He can keep them separated, and keep movingthem from one place to another, lessening their danger. Why not say this, even if it were not true? I find it difficultto accept someone who was unprincipled enough to murder close relatives for personal gain, and too principledto tell a lie. At least he could buy time. Instead he let himself to be forced into a position of eternal stalling.

Then there is the matter of Lambert Simnel and the Battle of Stoke. Here is where things get confusing. Lewissays that the Duke of Clarence planned to send his son to safety in Ireland as early as 1477. Did he succeed indoing so? Was it this boy, now an adolescent, who went with the Earl of Lincoln to Stoke, and was captured there?Or was it Edward V, supported by his Aunt Margaret and his cousin John (Lincoln}? Was the rebellion in favorof the boy in the Tower in 1487, presumed to be Edward of Warwick, but who was maybe a changeling? Was theboy at Stoke really 'Lambert Simnel,' as Henry VII claimed? Lewis thinks that that name was so comical that itmust have been made up by Henry to make fun of the whole affair. But don't real people also sometimes haveodd-sounding names? After all, there was a contemporary Bishop Lambert Fossdyke, which to my ear soundsrather snicker-worthy.

I made the mistake of going to bed right after reading this chapter and couldn't get to sleep for all those Edwardschasing around in my brain. I had to get up and read a few more chapters. Why didn't the Irish lords, a few yearslater, recognize Lambert/Edward when he served them wine? Maybe they were afraid to or were too embarrassedto. Surely Lambert, whoever he was, would do everything he could to avoid being recognized, for his own safety.

The story Lewis seems to favor, and the one most Ricardians believe, because it makes Henry VIIunquestionably guilty of the (judicial) murder of at least one of the princes, is that the man known as 'PerkinWarbeck' was really Richard of Shrewsbury, the younger of the two princes. The arguments for this are almostconvincing: Margaret of Burgundy, Maximilian of Austria, the royal families of Spain and Scotland recognized

16

him as such. With the exception of Margaret, how did any of them know what he looked like? And of course, theywere such snobs that they would surely not support a low-born impostor. Which only means that they believedhim to be the real thing, not that he was. As the author himself points out in the section on Stoke, the Royal Dukeof Clarence was plotting to substitute a relatively low-born stand-in for his son, whether he actually succeeded indoing that or not.

Other arguments in support (not necessarily proof) of this identification don't ring quite true, either. Henryhad Perkin/Richard beaten up so he would not be recognized in London? This presumes that everyone in London,from the beggars on the street, to his own family members, would recognize the 9-year-old boy as the grown man?And a black eye and a few bruises would prevent any recognition. Why did the queen not denounce 'Perkin.'?Perhaps he was Richard, but equally, she may have been simply unable (because of the time that had passed) tosay one way or the other, or unwilling. No doubt she was aware that recognizing 'Perkin' as her brother, or definitelysaying he was not her brother, was effectively signing his death warrant. She also, at this point, had several childrenof her own. Would she wish to endanger them by making any positive statement? Or even a negative one?

I have to say that in his only portrait, 'Perkin' does resemble, not so much Edward IV as Elizabeth herself. Thismeans little, except that both of them may have had a somewhat androgynous appearance. 'Perkin' is often referredto as 'beautiful,' while Elizabeth was referred to as a 'very handsome woman.' In any case, chance resemblancesmean very little. The More family fool, whom Lewis refers to in the next section, had an uncanny likeness toHenry VIII (Lewis merely describes this—there may be a illustration in the print version) but nobody suggestedthat Henry Patenson was any relation to the Tudors whatever.

To be fair, if Lambert Simnel was not necessarily a made-up name, it is possible that 'Perkin Warbeck' wasthe code name devised by Henry and his spies for the young gentleman, whoever he was. The reasoning goes likethis: Perkin = Peregrine = Pilgrim, or wanderer. That this was something like 'Piers Osbeck', the pretender's realname, or what the Tudor authorities decided was his real name. Another argument is Henry's own attitude towardthe pretender. He seemed to alternate between leniency and cruelty. After all, Henry had been a pretender himself,in the sense of someone with pretensions to a throne, even though he was who he claimed to be. Henry was wellaware that nobody had asked for his bona fides, his long-form birth certificate. He was accepted by the royalfamily of France and the ducal family of Brittany as the Earl of Richmond because he, and his uncle, said that hewas, and because it suited their political policies. Henry was afraid of Perkin, even panicked by him, but notnecessarily because he was' Richard of York.'

This brings us to the next theory, that both boys survived and were hidden in p lain sight at the Tudor court—theLeslau hypothesis. This doesn't call for anybody to be a villain—neither Richard, nor Henry, nor even ThomasMore. Edward became 'Edward Guildford,' and Richard 'John Clement.' There are some interesting sidelights here.John Clement appears on a list of jousters, along with Henry VIII and the king's illegitimate uncle, ArthurPlantagenet, and the king's good buddy, Edward Brandon. This was surely an unusual honor for a middle-classscholar. Clement, if he was Richard of York, would be about 35 at the time, Arthur probably about the same age,Brandon in his late 20s or early 30s not too old to be jousting, as Henry did in his 30s. Leslau's idea of havingGuildford and Clement's DNA followed up seems to have been abandoned since his death, but I think they shouldbe carried out. I hate mysteries, unless they are solved.

Basically, the Leslau theory is picking a conclusion, and cherry-picking proof to fit it. An interesting puzzle,but unfalsifiable and therefore unprovable. This applies to all the theories about their identification.

My theory, also unprovable, is a combination of the Baldwin theory (which Lewis mentions in passing—Richard of Eastwell could have been Richard of York) and a theory that was put forward by a Professor or Dr.Murphy at an AGM some years back.

To wit: Richard comes to the Tower to take the boys to a place of safety just too late. Edward, deeply depressed,(testified to by Dr. Argentine) has committed suicide, which adolescents are vulnerable to. His brother, havingwitnessed this, is deeply traumatized, perhaps unable to speak. Not knowing what else to do, they inform ElizabethWoodville. She will have hysterics later, but in the crisis she keeps her cool. She and Richard agree that the onlything to be done with the surviving boy is to send him to a place where he will be safe and have the best carepossible, someplace like the monastery at Colchester. Now having one boy dead and one alive is the worst possiblescenario. He cannot bury Edward in consecrated ground, and cannot say masses for him, so he cannot benefit byhis death, and young Richard is more of a liability than ever. He has to act as he did, in fact, act, and do nothingto acknowledge or deny their existence. Even today, there is a tendency to cover up a teen-age suicide, feeling

17

that it reflects badly on the family. Among deeply religious medieval Catholics, the impulse to silence must havebeen must stronger. Elizabeth Woodville will still hate him, hate him for driving her son to self-murder, but sherealizes that he poses no direct threat to her or her family, and will eventually come out of sanctuary.

Years pass. Henry Tudor becomes king. The surviving boy recovers to some degree, and Elizabeth Woodvillebelieves it would be better to be the King's Mother, rather than his mother-in-law. She supports Lincoln/Warwick'sbid, which she regards as a stalking horse for her son. Her daughter (her oldest two girls were surely in on theplot) doesn't go along with this, not believing that the boy is completely recovered yet, and fearful for her ownchildren. Little Arthur would be demoted to Heir Presumptive. But she can't bring herself to tell Henry the trutheither. On the one hand, she doesn't completely trust him; on the other, she doesn't trust her mother either. If shedid confess what had happened, Henry would say “Why didn't you tell me in the first place, and save me a battle?”There would be no answer to that. Elizabeth no doubt sighed with relief when l'affaire Simnel blew over.

Too soon. 'Warbeck' comes along. If it was awkward to tell Henry the truth before, it is much more so now.She can only stonewall, refuse to either recognize or deny 'Perkin Warbeck.' This may have been entirely truthful.But her brother remains safe, in a house of religion.

More years pass, with them Henry, Elizabeth, and many of 'Perkin's' own generation. The former PrinceRichard, long adjusted to being an anonymous lay-brother/monk/bricklayer, realizing that his best guarantee ofa long and happy life is to be nobody, is queried closely by Sir Thomas Moyle. Does he claim to be what heappears to be, an educated man, a former monk, down on his luck? He doesn't know how Moyle feels aboutCatholics in general and monks in particular. Does he admit to being a Plantagenet prince? Hardly safe in HenryVIII's England? But being someone of royal but of illegitimate birth may get him certain perks and comforts inhis old age. Even if he is proved to be a fraud, it is unlikely that he will be punished severely. He would simplybe no worse off than before.

Yes, quite fanciful and unprovable, but it fits all the facts and is psychologically likely. At least, if I werewriting a novel or short story (which I may yet) it is the tack I would take. I have certainly seen more fancifulrecreations, in serious books as well as fiction.

Whether reading Mr. Lewis' thoroughly-researched and well-written speculative history inspires you to comeup with your own theory or not, this is well worth reading, though if you have eyesight problems, it might beworth the wait and the money to get the print copy.

All right, just one more.There is nothing more certain than death, and nothing more uncertain than the hour of death.—John

Dalton, English merchant, quoted by Ms. Johnson.SO GREAT A PRINCE—Lauren Johnson, Head of Zeus, UK, 2016; also available in a Kindle edition.

Not a biography of Henry VIII, nor a history of the early years of his reign and the political moves therein,though these certainly play a part; this is more a social history of the scene in England in the first decade of the16th century. Ms. Johnson frames the book in terms of the canonical calendar, which can be a great puzzlementto us in the 21st century. Although people living in 1509 called January 1 New Year's Day, and celebrated it,mainly by the giving of gifts within the household, from employer to employees and vice versa, and among familymembers, the year did not turn (e.g. from 1509 to 1510, until Lady Day, the Feast of the Annunciation, on March25. Official pronouncements were usually dated by regnal years, e.g. 24 Henry VII. And events in any large townmight be dated by the name of the mayor at the time. No doubt post people knew when and where they were born,and made a note of it, but there were always those who fell between the cracks. (My mother, for example, knewwhen and where she was born, but the State of Kansas didn't, since registration of births was not required untilthe next year. In order to prove her age so she could get Social Security, she had to get an affidavit signed by aneye-witness of her birth—her mother!)

Ms. Johnson follows the citizens of London, native-born and incomers, through the year: Midsummer Eve,All-Hallows, the Twelve Days of Christmas etc. Each chapter covers some aspect of life at the time: the status ofwomen, the merchant or middle-class, exploration, books, clothing, and of course, Henry himself, and his dyingfather. The author highlights selected citizens, some of whom will be fairly well-known to us: the Pastons, thePlumptons, the Duke of Buckingham, noted for consumption conspicuous even by the generous standards ofHenry VIII

18

But there are others, including John and Alice Middleton (you may know Alice better by the name of hersecond husband, More). There is Thomasine Percyvale, who came from the wilds of Cornwall to work as amaidservant, married and was widowed by three tailors, and wound up with her own tailor shop and enough moneyto become something of a philanthropist. Bess of Hardwick could have taken her correspondence course..

Well-researched and good background material for the period. England, and anything but dry-as-dust. Englandin 1510 was not so different from England in 1483, or 1450, or even 1409. The England of 1547 would be verydifferent. But that is all in the future, as Ms. Johnson pulls back to give the reader an overview and leaves 1510behind., perhaps with an air of regret. It would not be surprising if the reader feels that same regret.

~ ToC ~

Rare and delightful books from the non-fiction library Susan Troxell

ex libris

AMERICAN BRANCH DIGITAL ARCHIVES PROJECTWe are pleased to announce that back issues of the Ricardian Register, the newsletter of the American Branch

of the Richard III Society, have been digitally scanned and uploaded to the Branch’s website. These go back to1966, not long after the Branch was founded and had only a few dozen members but was energized in August1967 to make its first trip to the United Kingdom to visit Ricardian sites.

American branch members on their inaugural trip to England and Wales in August 1967. Shown from the leftare Gretchen Clumpner, Mary McKitrick, Mrs. And Mr. Robert Leicester, Arlene Rosner and Mrs. Lena

Rosner, Mrs. Viola Neiman, Mrs. Betty Schloss, Mrs. Helen Schweser, and Shelagh Hunter. Source: RicardianRegister, Vol. II, no. 2 (1967).

19

They also contain thoughtful and sometimes enlightening articles written by our members, such as a fullastronomical analysis of the 1485 eclipse that occurred on the day of Anne Neville’s death, as well as nostalgicglimpses of past AGMs and the cherished contributions of past and some now-deceased members.

The project to digitally archive and make accessible the Registers began almost a decade ago, when the moresubstantive articles from 1991 to the present were scanned and uploaded to the members only section of theBranch’s website.

The recent project, overseen by our Research Librarian, involved digitally scanning full issues of the Register,including society news and organizational events, from 1966-1991. The scanning was performed by AllstateInformation Management in Pennsauken, New Jersey. Using the website password given to American Branchmembers, the archived Registers can be accessed at r3.org/members-only/archived-ricardian-registers-1966-1991/.To obtain the password, please contact our Membership Chair, Cheryl Greer, at membership@r3.org.

The Non-Fiction Library also maintains hard copies of past Registers for those wishing to browse them. Excesscopies are available for free, in exchange for the cost of postage. Requests for borrowing or purchasing the hardcopies should be submitted to our Research Librarian, Susan Troxell, at researchlibrary@r3.org.January – June 1978 Cover containing the appeal for a bigger than life size statue of Richard III.

Cover of the 1978 RicardianRegister now available online. GeoffreyWheeler’s photograph is of Sir JamesButler’s proposed design for theRichard III Leicester memorialsculpture. The successful appealheaded by the Society ultimately led toa slightly less martial image of the king.

~ ToC ~

20

Excerpts from 1966 Ricardian Register Vol. 1 No. 1Fifty-two years ago, the American Branch of the Richard III Society published its first edition of The RicardianRegister: Vol. 1. No. 1. Here are two excerpts from this publication:

REGIONAL DIRECTOR SPEAKS AT TOASTMASTERSOn November 2, Mr William Snyder, regional director of the Washington area, gave a talk entitled: 'Why

Richard III' to the Toastmasters International Club of Washington, D. C. The following quotes are excerpts fromthis talk.

'...the careful, objective, and interested student of history can observe the layering of myth, legend, andpropaganda into so—called history, shrouded in textbooks and sanctified, by repetition over these 500 years. Inthe same manner as the skilled pathologist dissects and lays bare diseased tissue, students of history are examiningthe life and times of Richard III with scrupulous care and objectivity and are attempting to lay bare the facts andremove the thick layers of fiction, propaganda, and hearsay.'

'Let's go back again to the Grand Canyon. Note how the colors of the rock seem to change with the shiftinglight of the sun. In the same way, we can observe how the character of Richard III changes as we focus the strong,clear light of careful and objective research and evaluation on this man and his times.'

'Such research has real meaning for our times, when the failure to distinguish between propaganda and factmight conceivably result in a

holocaust.'What is truth and how does one recognize it? This problem confronts very age and explains why the character

of King Richard III now, more than ever, poses a fascinating and challenging problem.'RICARDIAN RFFERENCE IN SCI—FI BOOK

While down in Florida and doing some light reading, I came across the following interesting reference:"Earlier in time E625 had been one with the world Blake had once called home. Then two crucial alterations

of events had given it another future altogether.The first came in 1485. Thereafter no Henry Tudor had reigned in England. Instead Richard the Third's

courageous charge at his enemy during the battle of Bosworth had carried him to the Lancastrian Pretender and,with his own hand, Richard had Put an end to the red rose for all time.

Once firmly on-the throne, Richard had developed the potentials that historians in Blake's world had come togrant him, with regret that he had never, in their own past, had a chance to show his worth as probably one of theablest of the Plantagenet house. ...

The brilliance that, in Blake's world, had marked the reign of Elizabeth Tudor, had in E625 flourished ageneration earlier under Richard and his immediate successors.

Andre Norton, QUEST CROSSTIME, Pp 75 - 76, Ace Books, Inc., New York, 1965Editor’s note: Since I am a fan of sci-fi as well as a Ricardian, I decided to chase down this book and immediately

found it available on Amazon in the Children’s books section (amazon.com/Quest-Crosstime-Andre-Norton/dp/067058441X/). I’ve ordered it, but as of this publication, have not read it.

~ ToC ~

21

Board, Staff, and Chapter Contacts

REGISTER STAFFEDITOR: Joan Szechtmaninfo@r3.orgASSISTANT EDITOR: Diana Rubinoassistant_editor@r3.orgCopy Editor: Ruth Robertscopy_editor@r3.orgRICARDIAN READING EDITOR: Myrna Smithricardian_reading_editor@r3.orgCHAPTER CONTACTS *ILLINOIS: Janice Weinerjlweiner@sbcglobal.netMICHIGAN AREA: Larry Irwinfkatycdc@yahoo.comNEW ENGLAND: Joan Szechtmancontact@r3ne.orgWebsite: r3ne.orgNORTHWEST: Jim Mitchellrichardiiinw@yahoo.comNEW YORK-METRO AREA: Maria Elena Torreselena@pipeline.comTidewater (VA): Bob Pfilerpfile43@gmail.comArizona: Marion Lowdickon3@cox.netRocky Mountain (CO): Dawn Shaferdawn_alicia_shafer@yahoo.com

EXECUTIVE BOARDCHAIRMAN: Compton Reeveschairperson@r3.orgVICE CHAIRMAN: Deborah Kabackvice-chair@r3.orgSECRETARY: Emily Ferrosecretary@r3.orgTREASURER: Lisa Pincetreasurer@r3.orgMEMBERSHIP CHAIRMAN: Cheryl Greermembership@r3.orgIMMEDIATE PAST CHAIRMAN:W. Wayne Ingallsimmediate_past_chairman@r3.orgCOMMITTEESCHAPTERS ADVISOR: Nita Musgravechapters@r3.orgLIBRARIAN: Fiction: Gilda E. Feltfictionlibrary@r3.orgLIBRARIAN: Research, Non-Fiction, and Audio-Visual: Susan Troxellresearchlibrary@r3.orgRESEARCH OFFICER: Gil Bognerresearch_officer@r3.orgPUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER: Wayne Ingallspublic_relations_officer@r3.orgON-LINE MEMBER SERVICES: Open(Contact Jonathan Hayes at chairperson@r3.org foraccess to member’s only page on r3.org)SALES OFFICER: Bob Pfilesales@r3.org

WEB CONTENT MANAGER: Open

WEBMASTER: Lisa Holt-Joneswebmaster@r3.org

*Chapter Notes:If you do not see a chapter near you and you would like to reach out to other Ricardians in your area, please

contact the Membership Chair at membership@r3.org. She will circulate your email address to membersin your area. If you later decide to go ahead and form a chapter, please contact the Chapters’ Advisorat chapters@r3.org.

If you do not see your chapter listed here, please contact the Chapter’s Advisor at chapters@r3.org andinclude current contact information.

~ ToC ~

22

Membership Application/Renewal DuesRegular Membership LevelsIndividual $60.00 $_______Family membership: add $5.00 for each additional adultat same address who wishes to join. $_______Please list members at the same address (other than yourself) who are re-joining_____________________________________________________________________For non-U.S. mailing address, to cover postage please add: $15.00 $________Contributing and Sponsoring Membership LevelsHonorary Fotheringhay Member $75.00 $________Honorary Middleham Member $180.00 $________Honorary Bosworth Member $300.00 $________Plantagenet Angel $500.00 $________ Donations*Judy R. Weinsoft Memorial Research Library $________General Fund $________Morris McGee Keynote Address Fund $________Schallek Special Projects Fund $________Total enclosed $________ *The Richard III Society, Inc., is a not-for-profit corporation with 501(c)(3) designation. All contributionsover the basic $60 membership are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.Circle One: Mr. - Mrs. - Miss - Ms. - Other: ______________________Name: _______________________________________________________Address: _____________________________________________________City, State, Zip: _______________________________________________Country (if outside of U.S.): _____________________________________Residence Phone: _____________________________________________E-mail: _________________________________________________________ New ___ Renewal ____ Please check if new address If this is a gift membership please place the following message on the gift acknowledgement email:_______________________________________________

Make checks payable to: THE RICHARD III SOCIETY, INC. (U.S. Funds only, please.)Mail to:

Richard III Society Membership Dept.c/o Cheryl Greer1056 Shady AvenuePittsburgh, PA 15232

~ ToC ~